Wikipedia:Proposed good articles

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
GA candidate.svg

WP:PGOOD
WP:PGA
WP:GAC

Good articles are articles that many people find to be better than other articles. Good articles have criteria/requirements that the article needs to have. Read Wikipedia:Requirements for good articles for information about the criteria.

This page is to talk about articles to see if they meet Good Article criteria. When an article is posted here, it should have the {{pgood}} tag put on it. This will put the article in Category:Proposed good articles.

Articles which are accepted by the community as good articles will have their {{pgood}} tag replaced with {{good}}. They are also shown on Wikipedia:Good articles and are put in Category:Good articles. Articles which are not accepted by the community as good articles have their {{good}} tag removed.

Articles that are above the good article criteria can be nominated to be a "very good article" at Wikipedia:Proposed very good articles.

This tool can be used to find the size of an article.

If you choose to participate in the discussion process for promoting articles, it is very important that you know and understand the criteria for good articles. Discussing an article is a promise to the community that you have read the criteria and the article in question. You should prepare to completely explain the reasons for your comments. This process should not be taken lightly. If there is concern that a user is not taking the process seriously and/or is commenting without reason, they may have their privilege to participate taken away.

Archives[change source]

Proposals for good articles[change source]

To propose an article for Good article status, just add it to the top of the list using the code below. You may have one nomination open at a time only. Proposals run for three weeks. After this time the article will be either promoted or not promoted depending on the consensus reached in the discussion.

This is not a vote, so please do not use comments such as "Support" or "Oppose" etc.

=== Article name ===
:{{la|article name}}
State why the article should be a GA. ~~~~


Manchester United[change source]

Manchester United F.C. (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

This article has a lot of information about the team without going too much in detail. It talks about recent history, and talks about Sir Alex Ferguson's time as manager at the club. It also has a squad list and a lot of interesting records of the club. If the article missed something, tell me. Bandideux (talk) 18:59, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Just glancing at the article, the introduction section could use a good beef up. eurodyne (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I did the introduction and it has a very brief history of the club plus a summary of some of the trophies it has won. Bandideux (talk) 16:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Categories and level of simplicity are good. It seems inconsistent about whether to refer to the team as singular ("it is") or plural ("they are"); my understanding is thst British English would treat as plural. There are several links to disambiguation pages. If you run the page through the Dab Solver, it will identify them for you. Fixing dab links isn't required by this process, but it makes the article better. --Auntof6 (talk) 10:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)
I think the article is just too short. The Ferguson era is covered in around 4 sentences, there's nothing about the Glazer takeover, it doesn't mention the ground(s) - overall it needs a bit more information for it to be considered for GA imo. --Pmlineditor (t · c · l) 09:51, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Agree; article too short; mostly statistics. Oppose for GA status until expansion proper. Seattle (talk) 00:26, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Seriously incomplete: omits almost entirely the club's greatest period, and the significance of its greatest players. If one said that no player in the present team is in the same league as Duncan Edwards, George Best and Bobby Charlton, no United fan would disagree. The period when Matt Busby was manager coincided with these great players. The Munich air disaster is tossed away in a sentence. The transition from being a British team, British owned with British players to the present club and side is not handled, and it should be. Macdonald-ross (talk) 09:28, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
OKOKOK. I don't know much about United (you got a Barça fan right here) but I can try to expand it. Bandideux (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Esperanto[change source]

Esperanto (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

In this article they can find a lot of information about history, today's use and grammar of this constructed language. It is also well illustrated with multimedia files and naturally referenced with information from external sources. Venca24 (talk) 08:41, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

  • One reason why articles on artificial languages are unconvincing is that they are so obviously written in favour of the particular system, with no balance and no genuine discussion of their many weaknesses. This article, which leans heavily on the En wiki version, is absolutely typical of the type. Too POV for me, Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:17, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
    • If there is more needed then only make the section "Criticism" better, can you say what these "too POV" are for that they can be neutralised? --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
    • Please tell what exactly should be better in the article. Any subject can get a good article, no subject is "too dangerous" for it. Just because you do not like artificial languages does not mean that there cannot be a neutral description of such a language. Czech, Slovak and Spanish Wikipedias have a good/featured article about Esperanto, so several Wikipedia communities have already got to this level. There are also descriptions of Esperanto by people who do not speak it, such as director Sam Green and neutral comparsions of various artificial languages by scientists such as Arika Okrent. This article has used parts from the article on Czech Wikipedia, which has been considered featured article with no disputes on neutrality for 8 years now. (CoI: I speak Esperanto and write about it for Wikipedia, but I also speak about it to journalists quite often, so I can tell facts and figures from opinions and convictions.) --Blahma (talk) 18:36, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

@Venca24: Have you received any other reviews? Leaning towards closing as not promoted; it's been over three months since you nominated. Seattle (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Everything I received is on this page. In fact I don't see any constraints on time in the guideline about GA (maybe it is in any other place or it is a custom at this WP). According to the guideline the proposal needs only anyone to start the voting or saying what are the weak parts of the article (which requirements the article doesn't fill). I think I can't start the voting as I am the proposer and one of the main contributors of the article (at least in recent time).
Maybe there is not so many people regarding the GA proposals, because some other proposals have also several months long gap in their discussion. :-) --Venca24 (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders[change source]

Bernie Sanders (change · talk · history · links · watch · logs · delete)

I have been working on this article during the summer during his surge in the polls and the article is in good condition for a GA (IMO). The article is well sources, has the proper information on the article and is updated. The article may need help in simplifying, but hey that's why I'm here. Any support and or comments to help improve the article is welcomed. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:10, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

@TDKR Chicago 101: Has there been any progress here? Seattle (talk) 00:22, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

  • @Seattle - I've been fixing and updating the article around the clock but no one has been adding their comments/suggestions here! --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 00:46, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
  • Haven't read it. But some of the links don't work and the citations need filling out properly. "Who's Who in American Politics – Google Books. Books.google.ca. Retrieved December 4, 2013." The author(s)? The year? The publisher? The edition? Google Books have nothing to do with the publication. Refs 66–75 all probably have authors, dates, etc, too. Tedious work, but it should be done for a good article. Osiris (talk) 04:43, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
    • @Osiris: I've added the information requested for refs 66-75. Removed the Google ref. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 05:12, 18 January 2016 (UTC)
      • K. There's nothing else that really stands out at the moment (which is good), so I'll give it a read over the week and get back to you with some comments if I have any. Osiris (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Related pages[change source]